German court in blow to Lisbon

The German Constitutional Court has ruled that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty must cease pending additional legislation to strengthen the role of the national parliament in EU decisionmaking. The treaty's compatibility with the German Constitution was challenged by Conservative lawmaker Peter Gauweiller of the Christian Social Union, Bavaria's ruling party (and sister party to Mrs Merkel's CDU). It was also challenged by members of Die Linke, the far left party that evolved from the former East German Communist Party. Among the objections was the claim that provisions of the treaty meant the German Parliament could be bypassed by the German government, which could then collaborate with other governments to use powers without being subject of national parliamentary control or consent Other objections included the claim that the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU the form of a federal government without democratic control, and that its common foreign and security policy would lead to the militarisation of German foreign policy. The Court rejected these arguments. It found the Lisbon Treaty was in conformity with the German Constitution, and that the act of parliament ratifying the treaty was also constitutional. The problem that caused the court to pause the German ratification process is in the accompanying legislation on the role of the German parliament in EU decision making. 'The Act extending and strengthening the rights of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in European Union matters' was found to be unconstitutional because it does not give the two chambers of parliament enough say on EU affairs. Specifically the problem lies with the procedures the Lisbon Treaty proposes for making changes to the EU treaties in the future. Lisbon has what is known as the 'general bridging clause' which allows the European Council to decide, unanimously, to move a competence from unanimity to Qualified Majority Voting. While all national parliaments most get six months notice of an intention to make such a change, and any one of them can veto the move, Germany's constitutional court said this was an insufficient role for the parliament. It insists that Germany's parliament must legislate to enable the German government to agree to this. A similar legislative safeguard is required for the 'Flexibility Clause', where EU leaders can (acting unanimously, and with the prior consent of the European Parliament) give themselves power to attain one of the objectives of the EU as set out in the treaties, but where the treaties themselves have not provided the necessary powers. National parliaments must be notified by the Commission. But Germany's court ruling goes further, insisting that the Federal parliament must pass an act giving consent to the German government. The court also listed some other areas where the parliament's role has to be defined in law before Lisbon can be ratified - notably in the fields of criminal law and the definition of cross border crimes (an extension of the list will now require a German act of parliament), the so called 'emergency brake' procedure in Judicial co-operation, which the court says requires parliamentary approval before use.The ruling underlines "no" campaign concerns about the impact of the Treaty on the democratic-deficit in the European Union, not least with respect to the role (or lack of it) of national parliaments. Lisbon will allow the Government to further erode the national-veto and to do so without the consent of the Irish people in a referendum. Article 48 of the Treaty on the European Union as amended by Lisbon allows for a "simplified revision process", whereby the text of the Treaties can be amended by the Council of the European Union (heads of government) without recourse to national parliaments or electorates. And while the Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments does afford them 8 weeks notice of new legislation initiated by the European Commission, they are not empowered from obstruct EU legislation itself.

The ruling comes amidst growing controversy over the status of the 'legal guarantees' offered to Ireland to help the Government win a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. UK Europe Minister Baroness Kinnock (wife of former Labour leader Neil Kinnock) has told the House of Lords that they will not have the force of EU law until added as a Protocol to a future Accession Treaty. She said: "Those guarantees do not change the Lisbon treaty; the European Council conclusions are very clear on them. The Lisbon treaty, as debated and decided by our Parliament, will not be changed and, on the basis of these guarantees, Ireland will proceed to have a second referendum in October." She added: "Nothing in the treaty will change and nothing in the guarantees will change the treaty as your Lordships agreed it....My Lords, what we have in the guarantees will become binding in international law when the guarantees are translated into a protocol at the time of the next accession, which presumably will be when Croatia or Iceland comes in. Before that protocol can be ratified by the UK, Parliament must pass a Bill. As I said, Parliament will rightly have the final say." But Foreign Secretary David Milliband appeared to contradict her during questions at the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee yesterday, stating: "Every head of state agrees that these guarantees do not change the Treaty...the guarantees are legally-binding in international law... It does not require ratification in order to have legal affect." This lead the Chairman of the Committee to ask, "If this is a legally-binding decision and doesn't need ratification, why does it need to be put in a protocol?" He asked, "Is it a stitch-up to get around Irish peoples' concerns? I can see why people would be suspicious." To confuse things further, Liberal Democrat MEP and self-described "militant federalist" Andrew Duff has claimed that an Irish Protocol appended to an Accession Treaty would be challenged in the courts as it would violate EU law, saying: "Adding this protocol to the Croatian accession treaty would leave the treaty wide open to attack in the courts...".According to the Irish Times, "he added that rules in the EU treaties governing accession treaties only allow issues pertaining to a state's accession to be dealt with." Clearly, the credibility of the Government's 'guarantee's is not something they can take for granted. I, for one, am far from convinced of their veracity.

Brussels resisting Irish guarantees

EU foreign ministers are resisting providing the legal guarantees being sought by the Irish government on the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish government is keen that the 'assurances' in the areas of taxation, neutrality and social affairs be attached as protocols to the next available treaty (possibly Croatia's accession treaty) and then ratified by all member states, enshrining the guarantees into European law. But member states – such as the UK and the Czech Republic – fear this could reopen their respective national debates on the Lisbon Treaty. They are instead pushing for a legal declaration from EU leaders at a European Council later this week (18-19 June). Czech European Affairs Minister Stefan Fule said on Monday that the "legal form" of the assurances required further discussion in order to: "ensure a smooth passage for the required guarantees during the European council,", adding: "Very good progress has been made and we are well on track to reach agreement at this week's European Council," he said. "Reaching consensus this week is important not only for Ireland but for the whole of Europe." Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheal Martin claimed the response to the draft texts "has been very positive so far" and that he was "quietly confident" that Ireland would secure the legally binding guarantees it was seeking. The Irish government is eager to return from this week's meeting of EU leaders with enough to convince Irish voters to back the treaty in a second referendum likely to take place in September or October. The Government wants to have them added to the next treaty following Lisbon in response to critics who said they could otherwise be superseded by the European Court of Justice. On RTE's Questions and Answers last Monday, constitutional-law expert Paul Anthony McDermott warned: "It's not clear they have any legal status...They are mumbo-jumbo. These legal guarantees - they're meaningless. The rest of Europe will sign up to anything if it gets them off the hook on Europe. But if you were ever to go to a court in Europe and try to rely on one of these pieces of paper you would be told "what article of the Treaty are you suing on and the answer would be I'm not suing on the Treaty, I'm suing on a piece of paper Ireland passed around the Council of Ministers and everyone signed up to it" so I'm certainly not a big fan of having another referendum.".

Amidst the gloating of the Lisbon-elites as to the fate of some anti-Lisbon candidates in the Irish euro elections lies a simply truth: this election was not fought on European issues, but on national ones. It also cannot be separated from the broader European context. For to do so, would represent hypocrisy on the part of those on the other side who sought to demonise Libertas on the basis of controversial comments on issues ranging from torture, to false accusations of anti-semitism and neo-Nazism with respect to its candidates in other EU countries. The Irish elite are trying to portray the defeat of Libertas across Europe as a humiliating defeat and a victory for the pro-Lisbon cause. Yet it is not so simple. Traditionally, the constitutional-architecture of the European Union has demanded unanimous treaty-ratification by the member states. It is abundantly clear from these elections in the 27 member states that where Lisbon is concerned, such a mandate does not exist - at least at popular level. The most glaring example of this can be found in the UK elections, where Labour - pushing through the deeply unpopular Lisbon Treaty without a referendum in the teeth of opposition from their own Eurosceptic population - was pushed to a humilating fourth-place behind the Tories, Liberal Democrats and even the UK Independence party. On 15.7% of the vote, they are now weaker than they have been since the 19th century. Were the results replicated in a General Election, the BBC estimates the Tories would return to power after 12 years with a majority of 28. The size of that majority should evoke memories of the last Tory govt, which was constantly at the mercy of its Eurosceptic backbenchers, particularly after the strong leadership contest in the party by John Redwood in 1995. In any case, party leader David Cameron is, if anything, far more of a Eurosceptic than his predecessor, promising - if Lisbon has not yet come into force across Europe - to withdraw the articles of ratification from Vienna and put the Treaty to a referendum that would certainly end in the rejection of the Treaty. And the Irish have allies further afield too. The Treaty remains under consideration by the German Constitutional Court, and further challenges are pending in the Czech Constitutional Court by Senators opposed to it. The Czech and Polish Presidents themselves continue to refusal to put their signature to it unless and until the Irish first vote no. And even then, it is far from clear that President Klaus will sign it. He is not obliged to by the Czech Constitution. Some in the leftist Opposition and a former Green minister in the deposed Coalition government have called for Klaus to be impeached, but the Constitution is clear on this: the Constitutional Court would make the final decision, and it appears that short of being incapacitated or having committed and act of treason, the President will remain in Prague Castle for the remainder of his four year term. It seems probable then, that if the Irish people and Klaus hold out until the next UK General Election, the Lisbon Treaty will be consigned to the dustbin of European history where it belongs. In that context, it is imperative that we stand our ground, that (in Lincoln's words) "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth".

Ganley surges in final days - Red C poll

Reports reached us last night that the Sunday Business Post's regional breakdowns of tomorrow's Red C election poll would not be released, but that their findings would show a surge for anti-Lisbon candidates Declan Ganley (Libertas) and Toireasa Ferris (SF). According to the source, on politics.ie, the newspaper would acknowledge a swing to Ganley: "but won't give the numbers, but I'm told 16% with a massive MOE of about 6% because of the sample size. Ganley's own people have been trying to push some internal research showing him on 23% and heading the poll with massive support in Galway, but no newsdesk has bitten yet because nobody (me included) thinks its credible. Mind you, the SBP figures make it just a little bit more possible". Meanwhile, in South, a compelling three-way contest is brewing between sitting anti-Lisbon Independent and disability-rights campaigner Kathy Sinnott, Labour's Senator Alan Kelly, and the dark horse who came from nowhere - Sinn Féin Mayor of Kerry Toireasa Ferris. However, the claims also raise ethical questions as to whether or not the newspaper, which - as a major player in the Irish newspaper-industry - owes it to its readership and the electorate to release the regional-breakdowns in full. This angle is alluded to by the source, who references the fact that when Ganley was on 5% in Northwest in the previous Red C poll, this was published by the newspaper. From my own personal perspective I believe they should publish, or have their impartiality called into question. While by no means the most serious offender, I am of the view that on balance, the Business Post has tended towards support for the Lisbon Treaty and by extension, the pro-Lisbon cause - a matter obviously relevant to these elections. As the only member state holding a referendum on the controversial Treaty (which as the EU Constitution was rejected by France and the Netherlands), the outcome of these elections will set the stage for the Autumn referendum in Ireland, and play a role in influencing the credibility of either side in the campaign. In that context, and in view of the enormous implications for Irish sovereignty of a decision to ratify or otherwise, I therefore call on the Business Post to release - as it has done in the past - the regional-breakdowns of tomorrow's Red C poll on the euro-elections.

Asked how the Business Post will portray the swing to Ganley, he adds they will "sit on the fence. He'll want to be able to say that the SBP picked up the swing if Ganley wins, but won't want to be seen as giving Ganley too much momentum", adding they are "writing a piece on Ganley's position on neutrality also, which I imagine won't be pleasant for Libertas supporters. Then again, all papers have discredited themselves on Ganley to the extent that I don't think smears work any more". I was concerned by this, in particular the question of whether the publication had a political-motivation in concealing its hard-data on Ganley's performance in Northwest. However, the source adds "they have picked up what some are calling a "big swing" to Ganley in the North West, with him picking up about 10% on where he was previously. Most party sources believe Ganley is on about 16% and rising and the RED C poll seems to confirm this. The key for Ganley will be momentum in the final week - if he can finish in the top 3 with 17-18% most observers agree that he will be safe enough. However, the Irish Times poll showing him stalling cannot be discounted, and we will have to wait and see on this one. In South, I'm told the increase in the Ferris vote makes up for much of the overall 3% national swing to Sinn Fein, and that she has moved into the "top tier" of candidates alongside Sinnott and Kelly. This is good news for Sinnott if she can stay ahead of Ferris, and curtains for Kelly as it is generally assumed that Ferris will benefit Sinnott when she goes out. As for Eoin Ryan in Dublin,"Fianna Failers are now certain that Ryan is a gonner. As in dead and buried. They are also worried about East, and feel that polls in NW are vastly overstating their vote. I know one FFstaffer who has put €500 on the party returning ony one MEP. Still too early to say, but Euro polls are notoriously unreliable. In NW, the relentless attacks on Ganley should be seen as a real indicator of how worried the parties are about him. Notice how none of them have attacked McLochlainn - they don't fear him, but they do think Ganley is a threat for a seat".

These expectations seem borne out by the actual results of the poll, which - as predicted - did not include the usual regional breakdown. For the Euro elections, the results are: FF: 20%,FG: 34%, Labour: 14%, SF: 9%, Greens: 4%, Libertas: 4% and Independents 15%. Without such a breakdown, all we have to go on is commentary by Richard Colwell (Red C) and Pat Leahy - and I have no beef with either of them. But it means we have to take their word for it when it comes to the likely apportionment of seats, which Colwell does as follows: "Liam Aylward is still in with a fighting chance for the third seat in the East constituency…Libertas support does appear to be on an upward trend…Almost all of this support is for the party’s founder, Declan Ganley, who, based on the poll’s constituency-figures, could yet be in with a shout to take a seat in the North West. This is a significant gain in two weeks and means he is a real threat to Gallagher, O’Reilly and Independent Marian Harkin…Harkin does remain in the running for a seat in the North West constituency, but could suffer at the hands of Libertas.". The national poll, in showing Libertas support at 4%, needs to be seen in the context of them only contesting three constituencies (Dublin, East and Northwest), but the fact that Ganley - written off for months by a hostile media in a manner familiar to the PDs for their 27 years on this earth - now stands on the threshold of ousting Harkin or sending Pat the Cope back to Leinster House despite an existence of barely six months must rank as a considerable acheivement and - on the context of these recessionary - even depressionary times - not an untimely one. Indeed even Jamie Smyth on the Irish Times blog, not exactly known as a friend of Libertas or the no campaign, is gracious enough to acknowledge than a successful election for the party cannot be ruled out, and that: "I think it is too early for yes campaigners to start counting their chickens ahead of the October vote. For one thing the economy is in such a bad state and sentiment towards the government is so poor that a Lisbon II referendum could become a referendum on the government. In other words, people may vote no to Lisbon simply to force Brian Cowen to stand down and prompt an election and a change of government.". We disagree of course, of the reasons for the no vote, but it is nonetheless comforting that the general nastiness of this election cycle can at times be rendered civilised and devoid of the kind of arrogance the Irish people have had to endure from our political, intellectual and media-elites since voting "the wrong way" last year. It is a trait others, like Europe Minister Dick Roche, might do well to learn.

Stop the blasphemy ban

Alarmingly for those of us who value Western freedoms including speech, the Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, has revealed his intention to make "blasphemous libel" a crime, punishable by a fine of €100,000. From the Irish Times:"Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.” “Blasphemous matter” is defined as matter “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.” Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them.What is interesting so far is the relative silence of the Left on the fundamental question of there being a blasphemy-ban. Even Labour Justice spokesman Pat Rabbitte, who wants the fine reduced to €1,000, and to exempt from the definition of blasphemy: "any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit." does not appear to call into question the wisdom of introducing such an offence into law in the first place.

It has to be asked where the impetus for this legislation is coming from. Is it from the Catholic Right, which has been fighting a losing battle for political-influence since 1992 (when the Irish people voted to legalise travel and information related to abortion), including the defeat of the 2002 Abortion-referendum, or is it from what the Left like to call "the new communities" i.e. particularly foreign-nationals of the Islamic faith in particular? In that respect, we would do well to bear in mind research across Europe on the attitudes of Muslim communities to questions pertaining to traditional Western freedoms, notably freedom of the press and of speech - and in particular, the question of blasphemy. With respect to British Muslims, an ICM opinion poll in 2006 revealed an astonishing 40% of them want Islamic Sharia law to be introduced in Muslim parts of the country. In relation to the Danish cartoons: The full figures on ICM’s website reveal some interesting bits and pieces that weren’t reported in the Sunday Telegraph. British Muslims surveyed by ICM were almost unaminous (97%) in thinking that the publication of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed was wrong, 77% said they personally were very offended by the cartoons, 9% said they were a little offended and 11% said they were not offended. Moreover: "Regarding reactions to the cartoons, 14% of British Muslims thought it was right for protesters in Muslim countries to attack Danish embassies and 12% thought it was right for “demonstrators to carry placards calling for the killing of those who insult Islam”. 13% said it was right “to exercise violence against those who are deemed by religious leaders to have insulted them”. The Left were at the forefront of dismantling decades of theocracy in this State, notably in the struggle against the bans on divorce and homosexuality. It would surely be ironic then, if in the name of Political-Correctness and a wish to appeal to a minority of newcomers to our shores, they were to take a step backwards from Enlightenment ideals of Western freedom in order to get us to a place at least as bad as where we started in the first place. All true liberals and democrats should oppose this bill, and make their views on it known to the powers that be - particularly on the Green benches in Leinster House. They forced Fianna Fáil's hand on the by-elections - maybe they can do the same with the Defamation Bill. For the email addresses of your TDs. see here.

Pamela Izevbekhai an asylum cheat - Mirror

Today the Independent and the Mirror are owed a profound debt of gratitude on behalf of the Irish people for their successful expositions of the deceitful way in which Pamela Izevbekhai has sought to remain in Ireland under false pretences. According to Tom Brady, Security Correspondent of the Irish Independent, a Garda Investigation into the Nigerian asylum-seeker who is facing deportation has uncovered evidence she used forged documentation to back up claims that her first child died after being subjected to female genital mutilation. Discrepancies in the case presented by Pamela Izevbekhai to the High Court and Supreme Court in Dublin and to the European Court of Human Rights have been uncovered, including revelations that she personally solicited a doctor to forge a death-certificate for her fictional daughter, 'Elizabeth Izevbekhai'. While Dr Joseph Unokanjo states that he refused the request, he does nonetheless reveal that the supposed death-certificate, "a document, allegedly signed by him, as a forgery. He also rejected Mrs Izevbekhai's claim that she gave birth to a daughter, Elizabeth, in February 1993 and that the girl died on July 16, 1994, following female genital mutilation. The findings represent a potentially serious blow to the prospects of Mrs Izevbekhai overturning a Supreme Court decision supporting her deportation in her appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. In an affidavit lodged with the European Court in Strasbourg, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr Joseph Unokanjo, who practises at Isioma Hospital, in Lagos, says he can confirm that no baby called Elizabeth Izevbekhai was delivered by him at the hospital and no baby of that name has ever been treated by him for any ailment, including post-circumcision complications. Gardai were also told there is no evidence of Elizabeth's death at the registry of deaths in Lagos, although a death certificate was presented to the Irish courts on behalf of Mrs Izevbekhai. Dr Unokanjo says he did not sign an affidavit purported to have been sworn by him on March 9, 2006, and did not issue a certificate of cause of death, which purported to come from Isioma hospital on July 17, 1994. Confirming the signatures are not his, he also says he is incorrectly described on that affidavit as a surgeon, and that the hospital stamp and hospital address are false. He emphasises the purported affidavit was not made by him and says he believes it is a forgery". In a further damning revelation in this shocking case, he "recalled that Pamela Enitan Izevbekhai telephoned him some years ago requesting him to issue a death certificate in respect of a dead child to enable her to be given asylum in the Republic of Ireland". He told her he did not involve himself in such activities, particularly since he was aware that she neither had a baby before 1999, and nor had she lost a baby. Dr Unokanjo also states the alleged medical certificate of the 'cause of death' is a forgery".

Now I know we have all come to expect gullibility of the most incredible kind from the Leinster House liberals since the onset of large-scale illegal-immigration to this Republic sicne the mid-1990's. In apparent amnesia of their primary responsibility to the people to whom they owe their political-careers in elective office, the Leinster House set have seen fit at almost every opportunity (save the Citizenship referendum regarding former Justice Minister McDowell and a small number of other select cases that are two few to mention) - even now in the face of the rapid collapse of our economy - to support and believe - or at least pretend to believe - the excuses and half-truths of those who wish to abuse our asylum-system for a purpose it was never purported to be designed to serve - namely economic-migration. For I am not opposed to legal economic-migration to this country - quite the contrary. While I have often held that - in the context of a recession, aswell as the necessity for the country to experience a reasonable lead-in time to learn the lessons, and avoid repeating the mistakes of France, Britain and the Netherlands with respect to integrating their new arrivals from overseas - we need to move from a policy of open-borders to a policy of regulation and control of immigration - I have always held firm to the belief that it is morally and politically wrong to scapegoat migrants as a whole for what is - at the end of the day - a failure by the political-class to adequately reconcile the economic and social needs of this country with humanitarian and cultural imperatives including the absorption-capacity of a small country like ourselves when determining immigration and asylum-policy. But that is not the same as not holding to account those who are in clear abuse of the principles upon which international law in the area of asylum, including the 1952 Refugee Convention, is supposed to be based. If indeed it is true - as it seems very much to be - that Pamela Izevbekha has sank so low in terms of morality as to concoct a work of fiction involving a nonexistent daughter who died of FGM, in order to emotionally blackmail the Irish State, to the detriment of the Irish taxpayer that is forced to oppose her application in the courts, into allowing her leave to remain in this country, then she should not only be ashamed, but so too should those who so typically condemned all those who saw through her. In particular I would like to single out for criticism figures such as Labour Lord Mayor of Sligo Veronica Cawley, who organised a civil-reception in her honour, as well as Fine Gael figures such as John Perry TD, who were amongst those calling for her to be allowed leave to remain in the State. Those politicians who have chosen to identify themselves with her case have now been shown to have egg on their faces. The Hard Left will probably stand by her. For them, the issue is an ideological one, rather than a case governed by merits or particular circumstance - they just want open-borders fullstop. I suppose it would be too much to ask Senator David Norris to see reason on this matter and admit the error of his ways in rubbishing correspondance he claimed to have received casting doubt on her story of how she arrived in Ireland. But one can always hope. She has outstayed her welcome in our country, and betrayed the noble cause of fighting the scourge of FGM in our world. She has also seen fit to manipulate the emotions of the Irish people, many of whom flocked to her cause when it seemed to them to be based on a mother's love for her children and a desire to protect them from a real and present danger - a danger now proven to be nothing but an illusion. This is a wakeup call for the Leinster House liberals. It is now time, in these recessionary times, for them to be true to the old maxim that charity begins at home. No more €1 million cases spent in legal guerilla-war in our courts challenging manifestly bogus asylum-claims. It's time to spend the money where it's really needed and deserved - on helping the old, the sick and the vulnerable, including the few genuine asylum-seekers resident in this State. 100,000 people have lost their jobs since the start of 2008, with up to half a million expected to be on the Live Register by Christmas. In the context of a €20 billion deficit, economies must be made and priorities imposed. Manifestly-unfounded asylum cases should not be among them.

Crack down on work-permits - O'Flynn

It's about time too. Cork North-central Fianna Fáil TD Noel O'Flynn has called for a crackdown on the issuing of non-EEA work-permits to migrant workers. The call will surely provoke much hand-wringing from the so-called 'anti-racism industry' (which exists to exaggerate the extent of racism in the country in order to silence debate on immigration-controls), which arguably includes the great majority of the folks in Leinster House. But it merits a more enlightened, considered and intelligent response, reflective of the changed times in which we find ourselves. Taoiseach Cowen and prospective-Taoiseach Kenny would do well to recognise that with the Celtic Tiger well and truly buried, the cupboard is bare and the capacity of the State to absorb immigration-flows on the scale we have seen since 2004 in particular is not what it was. With unemployment at 9.2%, it is no longer tenable for politicians to cite labour-shortages to justify the open-door policy. They will argue that in the context of the EU membership of ourselves as the former Accession-States in Eastern Europe, the State is powerless to affect limitations on the numbers allowed to travel here - and that is true. But such constraints do not govern the non-EEA work-permit and student-visa system, which the Government continues - on the basis of official statistics related to the number of PPS no's issued - to hand out like there is no tomorrow. Government figures show that 33,200 people from the Accession stateswere granted PPS numbers between July and December, a decline of 47 per cent on the same period in 2007. Specifically, in the last six months of 2008, the numbers issued to Poles declined by 53 per cent. Despite fewer Poles registered in December than in any month since their country joined the EU they remain the largest national group on the list compiled by the Department of Social and Family Affairs, with 42,554 having been allocated PPS numbers that year, followed by British (12,285), French (7,066) and Lithuanian (6,443) applicants. I suppose it's easy to be generous with other people's jobs. Already in 2009, in the midst of our worst recession since the 1980's, the issuing of PPS numbers remains high. Of the 17,532 issued in January alone, 8,499 were to foreign nationals. Broken down by nationality, 2,821 were issued to nationals of the former Accession-states, After all, noone on the hallowed halls of Leinster House, on either side of the chamber, faces a realistic prospect of displacement with cheap-labour by the remorseless hands of Dickensian employers - do they?

The high-priests of multiculturalism need to be challenged in the context of mature debate on the merits and demerits of this ideology. Too often the elite has uniformly balked at any suggestion that anything other than a liberal, open-door model combining the encouragement by the State of mass-immigration and an ideology that places all cultures on an equal footing should be questioned. In that respect, the stance of 'Official Ireland' is at variance with European trends. The nominally Socialist government of Spain has introduced subsidised voluntary-repatriation. The Italian government is led by a man who has rightly castigated the failings of multiculturalism, and whose Coalition includes the more hardline Northern League of Umberto Bossi. In the recent Austrian General Election, 2 Far-Right parties, the Freedom Party and the Alliance for Austria's Future, repeated their success of 2000 with a combined 29% share of the popular-vote, forcing the Socialists and the conservative Peoples Party into Coalition. In 2007, President Sarkozy of France won at least half of the former Le Pen vote on a platform of tighter immigration-controls, 'integration' of immigrants and opposition of Turkey to the European Union - all positions I would argue are popular with the Irish people but seemingly opposed by the Irish political and intellectual elites. Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against any law-abiding member of any ethnolinguistic group. But I insist that the Western freedoms for which generations of Irish and Europeans have given their lives be maintained, and that newcomers who come to our shores accept that this be so. Assimilation - not multiculturalism - is the way forward in terms of integrating immigrants with host-societies. We have the misfortune in Ireland of continuing to be governed by a postwar political and intellectual generation that sets its face against the reality that we have learned since 911 in general but since the world recession in particular. Now is a time when Irish and western workers are finding themselves forced to choose between competing with cheap-labour at home or emigrating abroad. This is not the fault of the immigrants. As far as I am concerned both the Irish and the foreign-nationals are victims of ill-thoughtout social-engineering by a condescending, PC and largely leftist elite. The French, British, Dutch and Spanish peoples have had a longer lead-time than us with which to experiment with the multicultural-model, and it has damaged both themselves and the newcomers by eroding a sense of cohesion and common-focus. By insisting that the State remain culturally-neutral and that the host-society make concessions to new cultures and regard them as equally valid as the host-culture, the proponents of the ideology have unwittingly or otherwise created fertile ground for Islamic-radicalism. I still recoil in horror at the memory of the "Behead Blair" demos in the UK. If you accept the principle of absolute cultural-equality (which is separate from the equality of the person - something I distinguish from "culture" which is defined a way of life), then you are - whether you like it or not - condoning the spread of Islamic radicalism. According to the British media, 4,000 British-born Muslims were trained in Al Qaida camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In particular, concerns have been raised about the proliferation of schools called madrassas in Pakistan, which historically were supported by that country's intelligence-services (ISI) to provide a fertile ground for recruitment for the Taliban and Al Qaida - something that began during the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980's. Then as now (though in a very different context), the West made a fools-bargain with radical-Islam, in the name of defeating an abhorrent ideology. Communism was defeated but what was spawned in its place? The Afghan people were sentenced to 12 years of civil-war and tyrannical Taliban-rule, setting up a chain of events that would one day lead to the terror-attacks on the West in New York, Washington, Madrid, London and against largely Australian tourists in Bali, Indonesia. The ideology our elite claim to be fighting is "racism". A noble aim, surely. But the political-class in Ireland have gone into overkill, demonising any and all calls for tighter controls on Muslim immigration in the supposed aim of 'anti-racism'. In particular, note the hysterical and disgraceful villification visited on Leo Varadkar - largely by Labour but also by Fianna Fáil figures such as Minister Mary Hanafin - some months ago for calling for calling for subsidised voluntary-repatriation for migrants. That an Irishman of mixed-race origins could be accused of making racist comments is the height of nonsense - even in a political-class so hopelessly engrossed in PC-thinking as this one.

New smear campaign against Libertas.

I said this was coming, and it has. Having failed to impune the integrity of Libertas-founder Declan Ganley, the Irish Times are now engaged in efforts at guilt-by-association. In that respect they are at one with the sleazy attempts by RTE - funded by you and me as license-payers - to do likewise - but this time they are casting their nets wider, to the Czech Republic where the Irish Times attempts to throw mud by linking the Irish Libertas by association with its Czech counterpart. Some will question the wisdom of going under a common umbrella which was always going to open a Pandora's box in terms of guilt-by-association on behalf of the Grand Inquisitors of the Irish Times and other malignant organs of the "yes" campaign, but the public know that Fianna Fáil are in no position to lecture others on ethics, not least considering the fallout from 11 years of the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals and the pending trial of a well-known party-figure for bribery (which to his credit he has come clean - you know who I'm talking about). In contrast, there have been no charges of any kind brought against figures in the Irish Libertas-organisation, so the muckrackers have had to cast their nets-wider, and do so in today's IT, with a tabloid-esque headline stating "Businessman Declan Ganley has recruited a Czech MEP and former media mogul, Vladimir Zelezny, to help set up a Libertas branch in the Czech Republic in advance of the European elections. The appointment is the first significant announcement made by Libertas in central and eastern Europe, where Mr Ganley hopes to win scores of seats in the June elections. Mr Zelezny is a colourful and controversial character. He is currently being investigated by the Czech authorities for tax fraud and abuse of creditors.He is co-founder of the state’s first commercial television station, Nova TV, which became the Czech Republic’s most popular channel by broadcasting popular US imports such as Baywatch and featuring naked women reading the weather forecast.". The mischievous halftruths of this article are exposed by the subsequent Libertas press-release, which reveals Irish Libertas or Ganley had no hand, act or part in selecting Mr.Zelezny to lead their Czech counterpart, stating "Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley has this morning strongly rejected as false and untrue a report by the Irish Times suggesting that he has "recruited" Mr. Vladimir Zelezny MEP and "appointed" him to a position in the Czech Republic. Mr. Ganley said that while Mr. Zelezny had registered the name Libertas in the Czech Republic, this action was not done on the request of Libertas in either Dublin or Brussels, and indicated nothing more than the enthusiasm of support for the Libertas project being expressed by people across the continent. He also made clear that Mr. Zelezny had not, as implied in the report, been asked to stand in the European Elections by Libertas, or in fact been the recipient of any specific request from Libertas in relation to its campaign, nor had he been the subject of any announcement made by Libertas, as reported."

Not content with smearing Libertas on it's integrity, the IT continued the usual theme of attempting to tar Mr.Ganley and the Irish organisation with the "Eurosceptic" brush (though even if it were true, what would be wrong with that in a democracy?). 'Mr. Ganley went on to firmly reject attempts made by such reports, and by the Irish Times over the past number of months, to attach his name to a Euro Sceptic agenda: "It is a well established fact that Libertas is not a Euro-sceptic organisation, nor does it espouse any Euro-sceptic policies. If calling for democracy and accountability in European governance makes one a euro-sceptic or anti-European, this raises other more serious questions on the anti-democratic path that Brussels is firmly on at present. The fact that some narrow sections of the media ignore the fact that Libertas is pro-European and not euro-sceptic would suggest that they may be falling susceptible to other agendas. We are delighted with the progress being made on the project we have undertaken, which if successful will see the voters of Europe being given a chance for the first time in Europe's history to vote on a common, reforming platform which would restore democracy, accountability, and economic common sense to the heart of Europe". I am not my brother's keeper. The reality is that even in Ireland, the no vote - like the yes vote - were coalitions of groups with sometimes incompatible opinions but who shared a common stance on the Treaty. The idea that because we don't agree on everything we are not entitled to agree on some issues is an utter nonsense. Were that the case, Charlie and Dessie and Albert and Dick would not have gone into Coalition with one another. The reality of democracy in countries like the Czech and Irish Republics is of coalition-building in common cause despite fundamental political-differences on some matters. If the Irish Times hadn't been asleep for the last 20 years you would be aware of that, and consequently would not be so damning of those who disagree on some issues pertaining to Europe happening to agree that Lisbon is bad.